It
should come as no surprise to you that the Internet of Things already
depends upon open source. Many IoT devices run one form of embedded
Linux or another. In fact, without Linux many IoT devices simply
wouldn't exist. What should come as a surprise to you is when companies
that produce these IoT devices close up shop, they leave those devices
out in the wild to die. Perfectly good hardware no longer capable of
functioning...even when open source is at the heart of the device.This needs to change.

What's the problem

In most instances, the companies that create the devices (those same companies that depend upon open source

More about Mobility

as a foundation for
their products) layer proprietary software and APIs on top of the open
platforms running the system...all of this on closed hardware. Because
of this, once the company dies, that hardware is left to wither and die.
And before you think this never happens...it does. Companies are
purchased all the time. Sometimes these purchases are innocent and
sometimes not. Every so often, a company will be purchases just to put a
competing product to bed. This winds up leaving consumers with a
bricked device. You might think a product would continue to work, even
without updates or company support. However, within in the realm of IoT,
those products depend upon services offered by the company in order for
the device to function. So long as those devices use closed APIs and
hardware, they could very well remain dead.However, if more
open source were put in place, should a product be "bricked" by a
company closing up shop, those products could be repurposed by the open
source community and the device have a chance of continuing on.

Paying it forward

This
really isn't just about making sure a consumer-purchased device remains
viable once a company shutters its doors and windows. This is about
said company paying back the open source community for supplying the
foundation that makes the device possible in the first place. Remember,
without Linux, many of those IoT devices wouldn't exist in the first
place. And so, it seems only fair that these companies pay it forward to
the open source community. Should your company close up, hand the
proprietary bits over to Git so open source developers can make
something of your dead product.It's one thing to stop supporting a
product, when said product can continue functioning. But when that
product is a part of IoT, the end of support generally means the end of
the product. With the help of open source, that product can continue
functioning...even if in an altered capacity.Thing is, the open
source community is a talented and creative collective of developers.
You give them a defunct product and the APIs to communicate with that
product, and they'll make something happen. We've seen this work, to
perfection, for years with routers. Thanks to the likes of DD-WRT,
those older routers can be given new life and new functionality.
Imagine what the open source community could do with the now-defunct Revolv Connected Home Hub?
I would imagine the open source community would do exactly what the
original company had planned...create a single product that would be
able to communicate with all IoT devices. So long as the other IoT
devices offered open APIs, this could happen.See what I did there?

Those tricky APIs can certainly get in the way. One of the
goals of Internet of Things is to create connected devices that share
data and seamlessly blend together. When companies close up the
communication bits, those devices can't do the one thing they
must...communicate.We want Amazon's Echo to communicate to Nest
(something that can now be done). We want Product A from Company B to
work with Product C from Company D...otherwise, what's the point of IoT?
You'd wind up having to buy all of your IoT devices from one company.
And what happens when you do that and the company goes under? You've
just spent a wad of cash on bricks.Not if open source has anything to do with it.I
realize this is asking a bit much. Companies keep their secrets for a
reason. But when those companies depend upon open source to drive the
products that make or break their bottom line, it only seems right that
they give back in some way. So why not open the products fully? Not only
would that save the devices (should the company fold), the open source
community could build on those devices, adding features, connecting more
services, and generally making them more and more attractive to use.Imagine
your your fridge being able to communicate with your thermostat or
Android Auto being able to communicate to your home hub or door locks.
This, and so much more, could happen with the help of open source.